Hi, Before we remove the ability to have C++ plugins, or the ability to enable/disable them, we should first inform our users and developers and ask them if we are fine with what we propose.
There may be usages of QGIS out there that rely on the ability to have C++ plugins that we are not aware of. --------------- I do agree though that some core plugins could be removed or integrated into the core. One example is the coordinate capture plugin, which could be easily integrated in core, e.g. integrated in the identify tool or status bar. Probably the EVIS plugin is another candidate with lots of overlaps. If we add the missing functionality the EVIS plugin provides to core, we could get rid of it. Andreas On 2016-12-12 20:57, DelazJ wrote: > Hi, I do not fully share the agreement on having core plugins not > deactivable. Are Core plugins the problem or is it Processing? Let's not > wrongly mix issues. > > I'd always thought that Core plugins meant plugins developed, managed, > updated by the QGIS project itself, provided by default with installation. It > doesn't mean that everybody wants to use it or needs it. The Road Graph is a > plugin I had never executed in 5 years I'm using QGIS. Many others (GPS > Tools, Heatmap, rasters related plugins...) are concerned. Why would I want > it activated by default and crowd the GUI? Then I'd have to struggle and > change some somehow hidden customization option to have it disabled? Uncheck > it in Plugin Manager sounds far simpler. > > What puzzled many users (and might still do) with Processing in QGIS >=2.16 > is to have removed fTools and not activate Processing by default for those > that were using fTools. They should be provided a transparent replacement of > fTools (including the removal of this one from the list). > And maybe communication about this change is not clear for all people. > Currently, fTools state is broken but there's no message to tell you that you > should instead activate Processing to get back your lovely functions. > > So, from me, no, Core plugins should stay (de)activable even though looking > at all the list of Core plugins being integrated in Processing in 3.0 I > wonder how many Core plugins will stay (DB Manager and Processing?) when 3.0 > lands. :) > > Also, one of the power of QGIS imho is its modularity: you pick what you > need. We should not put all in one. And having Core plugins being listed > there gives some kind of confidence to contributors to follow the path > (create plugins). I'm not sure i well expressed what I meant to. > > Regards, Harrissou > > 2016-12-12 16:01 GMT+01:00 Martin Dobias <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Victor >> >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Victor Olaya <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> This has been discussed in the past, but i think no decision was >>> taken, so I want to bring back the discussion. >>> >>> I think that core plugins should not be visible in the plugin manager, >>> and users should not be able to disable them. If they are core, they >>> should be active (the menus and buttons can be removed with the >>> "View/Customization..." functionality if the user wants to) >> >> Agreed that Processing should be always on. Also, IMO it should be >> available as "qgis.processing" python module. >> >> Cheers >> Martin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Qgis-developer mailing list >> [email protected] >> List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1] >> Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1] > > _______________________________________________ > Qgis-developer mailing list > [email protected] > List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Links: ------ [1] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
